Prolegomenon to a Pedestrian Cartography of Mixed Legal Jurisdictions: The Case of Israel/Palestine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between cartography and law provides a unique focus through which to examine mixed legal jurisdictions. Through an exploration of the various uses of law, cartography, and nation building, the author postulates that mixed legal jurisdictions are created through the subtle incorporation of the originally unfamiliar “Other”. In Canada, European settlers asserted sovereignty through the mapping and naming of territory in ways that did not accord with traditional Aboriginal patterns of usage or conceptualizations of space. The eventual creation of a legal middle ground between these peoples, as articulated by Richard White, is the basis of the author’s analysis of Israel/Palestine. From the middle ground of mutual understanding, which is an alternative to the use of force, there is a potential for alternative cartographies and legal traditions to emerge. The centrality of the Holy Land in all three monotheistic religions has led to a proliferation of maps of that region, all of which communicate information that surpasses the mere physical description of the place. Both maps and laws are sources of authority that seek to orient an individual’s intellectual perception of reality. Modern cartography recognizes that it is an ethnocentric projection to assume that there is a single conceptualization of space through which all others must be assessed. The author theorizes that certain silences in maps parallel silences in law, and that the contemporary focus on both is an attempt to promote social justice by attending to those who are ignored or marginalized by both of these disciplines. Maps depict the physical borders of modern states, as well as the borders of legal jurisdictions. In defining these boundaries, the power creating the map superimposes a system of measurement that is the basis of future property transactions. The system selected is inextricably linked to specific conceptions of governance, society, and control. The result of these linkages is that maps are literally a reflection of the power that created them. The middle ground between those with the power to create official maps and those without such power emerges by reading alternative maps in combination with other historical maps. The author suggests that this process requires subjective attention to the content of both official and alternative maps, in an effort to create a mutual understanding that is impossible when focusing solely on ideas such as “historical accuracy” and “correctness”.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".